Practice question
A respondent's deadline to file a counter-affidavit in a COMELEC election-offense investigation has expired. The respondent files none. COMELEC argues that it can therefore leave the case unresolved indefinitely. How did Sarigumba address that argument?
- It accepted indefinite delay whenever no counter-affidavit exists.
- It held that the Constitution stops applying after the deadline.
- It required automatic conviction without investigation.
- It rejected indefinite tolling and required resolution under the governing rules on the available evidence.
- It transferred every such case automatically to COA.
Legal references
- Sarigumba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 263615, August 19, 2025, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70155
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.